When I moved to Tulsa I was happy to find that the restaurants per capita* was above average of the rest of the nation for major cities. As you may know I love eating and I love eating out, so I was looking forward to trying all the restaurants T-Town had to offer. After living here for a couple of months I am kinda disappointed, the average quality of restaurants here is below that in other cities.
I got to thinking about why this is, and the best I can come up with relates to my own personal idea of "never trust a fat chef". I figure if a person is a chef and is skinny he will be more likely to only serve good food where as a fat chef may be prone to serve any food, be it good or not. Since the fat chef eats a lot I assume that it means that he cares less about what he does eat. (I know that is morphing the original meaning of never trusting a skinny chef, but it works.)
So why would a city with more restaurants have worse restaurants on average? I think the best way to think about this is to imagine the opposite: why would a city with less restaurants have better restaurants? I think that this would happen because if there are less restaurants to keep track of the quality of each restaurant will be more widely known and thus bad restaurants will fail sooner. Now if there is alot of restaurants it is harder for people to know about all of them so that means that bad restaurants will get some business just because nobody has heard anything about them. This prolongs the life of the restaurant and thus drags the average quality down overall.
*(astute readers may raise your hypocrite flags, although it is a pretty standard phrase)